Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 2682. (Read 9723733 times)

As Evan said here: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/official-statement-on-rebranding-to-dash.4297/ it's like a domain name.  It's amazing how valuable domain names are...

Who cares about Dashcoin? We're "DASH". Not related at all.

Please see this:

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/official-statement-on-rebranding-to-dash.4297/


"Hey Evan, will you sell us the login rights to Darkcoin's github for $25,000,000?"

Sincerely,
The NSA

What was bought out? A Github account, nothing changed to dashcoin, we are not rebranding darkcoin to dashcoin, we are rebranding to DASH.
What does it has to do with your coins, you still have all, you can still do what you want with them, noone says other, besides you.

 Precisely you ding-dong!! (been using this expression as of late, and I just love it).
 
 I'll try to keep it simple.

 Trademark requirements - a name - no one uses it? Fine -> there you go!

 Trademarks requirements - a name - some are using it - LOOK, the dude in crypto didn't trademark Dashcoin? pfff... peanuts compared to buying the trademark. We get to prove we had legit use of the name, we can file for Trademark.

 You can buy all Dashcoin you want, you have absolutely zero control over the coin. The gibhub on the other hand... well, that's the real honey pot.

 Genius move.

You're toxic to the crypto community. No court would even see that as viable. The marketcap was never more than like 50k in the entire existence of the coin:

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dashcoin/

Even if it was accessed at a GENEROUS 30% mark up to the all-time high market cap, it still isn't justifiable to a $1M valuation. Get real.

That's on top of the fact that we aren't using "Dashcoin" but rather Dash, have consulted with IP lawyers, etc, etc. Dashcoin could easily continue development if it so desired, even with the same name for all they care.

That's just it.  They weren't, "polite".  They are doing it all wrong.  You don't buy out the dev.  You buy out the community and coin.  To do it any other way it very bad business.

I wonder if you want to sue all the altcoin exchanges, too, because they destroy coins after they delist them, investers invested because they were listed, and then they are unlisted, SUE THEM.

Back to topic, i have no clue whats going on in your head, where you get all that information you think you have about anything in the darkcoin / dashcoin deal.
I haven't read any official about Darkcoin is overtaking Dashcoin, Darkcoin is not even taking the name, its DASH not dashcoin.
Where did you get that insane idee anyone will take your dashcoins? Why do you think you cant be traded at exchanges after, where do you get the idea darkcoin has to destroy dashcoin?

The only think i see so far is a owner change of a github. Thats all. So tell me whats the difference for your Dashcoin, does anything changes for you?

By all means, educate me.  Please cite case law with decentralized assets to backup your case.

I tried my best to explain this to you, as you can see there is a precedent with Bitcoin, where Bitcoiners dont own any trademarks and not even the foundation does. Ironically it is owned by one of the companies that hurt it the most, but so is the law.  I wont address this subject anymore as I dont see there is anything else to add.

MyFarm -

First of all, the only way in which anyone can categorically "own" a name is by trademarking it. Have a look at how many companies are called "A1 Plumbing"..https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=a1+plumbing

Trademark infringement is fairly academic to contest - you've either got a registered trademark in the same category as that in which a competitor is actively trading or you haven't. (And that means actually having it registered with the trademarking authorities which is a lengthy process).

I dare say there are edge cases, for example if another airline called "Delta" started up in the US and the original 'Delta' had never trademarked their name then there would be all kinds of regular practical complications that would simply make it too difficult for the newcomer to trade. For example, they'd have to Incorporate their name with the authorities and that would be impossible because the name was already taken.

I can tell you right now though that as far as companies house in the UK is concerned (who register 'Limited Liability Companies') they would have no problem at all with one company called "Dash" and another called "Dashcoin". They would categorically be seen as distinctly registrable entities.

For example, here's a list of all the registered companies in the UK with one thing or another to do with a certain "rise from the ashes" bird.....(hey - and that's only A to D, I won't bore you with the next 8 pages   )





I think darkcoin team have been pretty polite even offering to buy the other dev out. They had no need in my opinion. They're just being tidy about it.

The other thing is the extent to which cryptocurrencies are 'legal entities' in the first place. The fact is they are not - it's a bit like me and everyone else in the country calling my local highway "toknormal way". No one can stop me from doing that or sue me. The problem comes if I want to institutionalise that name in some kind of official register. Then I need to check there are no 'toknormal ways" that are already on the books.

This speaks to the whole essence of cryptocurrencies and why they're such a threat to the fiat banking system - nobody owns them because they are decentralised. When I say "own" I mean in a legal sense. Just because you happen to have access to a private key doesn't mean you "own" the coins at that address because there is no manifestation in law of cryptocurrency ownership (due to the fact there are no counterparties involved) - you'd need to buy from an ETF if you want that kind of "ownership" and even then you would'nt have any executive rights over the currency other than to spend it because currencies are not "companies".

The bottom line here I'd say is "are there any other cryptos called 'Dash' " and using the DASH ticker.

No ? Right lets get on with it then  

Almost as idiotic as buying the repo and claiming you own one of the most important assets of a decentralized asset: its name.  BRB I'm going to go bribe the Monero dev for $100,000 then send cease and desists to every Monero holder and exchange and destroy the coin.  You have to defend your trademark, ya know?

MyFarm you don't know even basics of what you talking about and this is giving me a headache. For are start there is implied trademark and registered trademark, go do some basic reading before shooting off here :/

EDIT: amateur lawyers think all the law can be worked out logically - it can't, even the terms you are using are generic and have many interpretations / laws covering them. that's why there are lawyers and why they charge a lot of $.

There is no legal precedent for decentralized assets.  All I have to do is bribe developers, take over the github, and then I can file a trademark and send a cease and desist to coin holders, exchanges, etc in essence destroying the decentralized asset?  I don't think so.  If that is upheld in court, Darkcoin could start bribing developers for say 50k and destroy multi-million dollar assets.  There's no way any sane court would uphold that.

MyFarm - go speak to a lawyer, you are all over the map mate.

That's the initial offer.  If it has to go to court, I suspect the Dashcoin community will want much more.

I understand your argument and it is a decent one.  However, the Dashcoin developer did not file a trademark.  He then released a decentralized asset into the marketplace.  I would argue that Darkcoin buying the Dashcoin repo is NOT buying Dashcoin because it is a decentralized asset and, "Owned by the community" and that buying the repo does not provide trademark registration rights as that would suddenly allow you to provide a cease and desist to the decentralized asset which makes no sense.  The SEC stated, "Whether a virtual currency is a security under the federal securities laws, and therefore subject to our regulation, is dependent on the particular facts and circumstances at issue. Regardless of whether an underlying virtual currency is itself a security, interests issued by entities owning virtual currencies or providing returns based on assets such as virtual currencies likely would be securities and therefore subject to our regulation."

My argument is this is a very unique situation with no legal precedent and that Darkcoin is potentially opening itself up to legal liability.

As for the process being handled IP lawyers, please provide the firm's name so they can be contacted.

Agreed... to go from a marketcap of like 7k to 1M is fucking crazy. MyFarm, stop smoking the ganja.

can't stand amateur lawyers who try to add up everything logically in their own head. LAW DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT 

 Sorry. Dead end at the first full stop.  

 There has been nothing more hilarious to me than someone buy all liquidity in the market and make claims they own a coin... It would be like saying that if you own all dollars, you own the dollar.

 Nope, the FED owns the dollar, you just became the biggest ower. In crypto land, different story, same result.

 MyFarm, just wow man... That is just the most idiotic thing on earth.

 If I buy all banans in the world, I dont own all the banana-trees in the world.
 You just became the biggest crypto-monkey I know of. Wasn't SPR bad enough for 'ya?